Author
Topic: 5d Mki or 60d (landscapes) (Read 3266 times)

Hi all.I'm looking at getting a new camera for landscapes, and have somewhere around the AU$900 mark. So, my question is whether I should look at getting a new 60d (18 megapixels, crop sensor), or a second-hand 5d Mki (12 megapixels, full frame)Any suggestions/reasons to consider or not consider either body?

You can get a clean 5D, in really nice shape, for not a whole lot of cash.

Here's the way I see it: Its a cost effective way to get FF imaging. The 12mp images it makes are very good.

If you're the kind of landscape photographer that shoots long scenes with medium telephotos (mountains, waterfalls, etc) the 60 might be better. But if you like wide angles, you can't beat a FF sensor.

My old XTi (400D) was capable of very nice imagery even at its "puny" 10mp output. You'll not be under-gunned with output on a 5D, unless you're really printing very large. In that case, the 60D isn't gonna cut the mustard either.

* Out resolves the 5D, and this is visible in large landscape prints.* Has wider DR than the 5D.* Has less high ISO noise than the 5D.* Has both LiveView focusing and a built in level, both very useful tools for landscapes. (LiveView is huge when you need to check DoF and use hyperfocal focusing.)* Can use relatively low cost, high IQ wide angle crop glass. For example: to match the $700 Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the 60D you will need a $1,700 Canon 16-35L on the 5D.* Comes new with warranty.* Shoots faster, has video, uses modern batteries, and can remote trigger flashes. (Not as important for landscapes, but still.)

The 5D...* Has a better viewfinder.

The 5D was a great camera, and is still a very capable camera. But at the same price as a 60D it's a silly buy. The 60D is better in every respect except one (viewfinder). And that includes sensor, no matter what format fans want to believe.

Speaking from personal experience with both, I prefer the noise than the 5D at 1600 to the 60D's at 1600. The 60D is probably better at 3200. Agree with a previous post that 12mp on FF is better than 18mp on crop.For Landscapes (and not necessarily other types of photography) I would choose my old 5Dc over my 60D 10 times out of 10. Maybe just personal opinion.

* Out resolves the 5D, and this is visible in large landscape prints.* Has wider DR than the 5D.* Has less high ISO noise than the 5D.* Has both LiveView focusing and a built in level, both very useful tools for landscapes. (LiveView is huge when you need to check DoF and use hyperfocal focusing.)* Can use relatively low cost, high IQ wide angle crop glass. For example: to match the $700 Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the 60D you will need a $1,700 Canon 16-35L on the 5D.* Comes new with warranty.* Shoots faster, has video, uses modern batteries, and can remote trigger flashes. (Not as important for landscapes, but still.)

The 5D...* Has a better viewfinder.

The 5D was a great camera, and is still a very capable camera. But at the same price as a 60D it's a silly buy. The 60D is better in every respect except one (viewfinder). And that includes sensor, no matter what format fans want to believe.

+1

I've not shot w a 5Dc, but the output from it IS pretty nice and I've thought about picking up one to play with.However, I've shot LOTS of landscape with the 60D. It's a VERY good camera and I'd recommend it over an ancient 5Dc mostly for the technical and feature improvements. If you're shooting landscape, low ISO is more important than hi and 60D's low ISO performance is one of Canon's better bodies.goes a long way on a battery charge too.

There are a lot of advantages with a newer body (60D) over an older body (5Dmk1). It doesn't really matter which newer body against which older body, the newer one will almost always win. You can compare pixel counts, ISO ranges, noise, focus, and support/waranties.... the new body almost always wins.

To me, this seems like a question of full frame over APS-C. The 1.6 times factor for APS-C is great for that extra reach for wildlife shots but can be terrible for wide angle views. Yes, you can use a 10-20mm lens on your 60D ( got it and love it!) but any superwide lens really distorts the view. A full frame sensor will give you less distortion on those wide shots.

Thinking outside the box..... remember that this is DIGITAL photography and not FILM photography. With digital photography you have the additional option of using a lens that is not wide enough to capture your subject (less distortion), taking multiple shots, and stitching the works together at home to create a more pleasing image. The 60D does not have a panorama setting, you have to select your frames manualy. Even if it did, you are better off processing at home than an auto feature built into your camera... sort of like shooting RAW or JPG.... one is more convenient but the other works WAY better.....

Pretty much by definition you're going to be on a tripod. Run-and-gun and landscapes don't quite mix.

I've shot a lot of landscapes on hiking trips... and you have to be very fit to carry all your gear for a week up a mountain, particularly when you throw in a DSLR and a couple of lenses. The tripod tends to stay home.

Hi all.I'm looking at getting a new camera for landscapes, and have somewhere around the AU$900 mark. So, my question is whether I should look at getting a new 60d (18 megapixels, crop sensor), or a second-hand 5d Mki (12 megapixels, full frame)Any suggestions/reasons to consider or not consider either body?

They should both do sa good job. Having a 1 year warranty with a new 60D is a plus. Plan on buying good glass. It will make more difference than either of these bodies.You do not need superwide for landscapes, get lenses with the lowest distortion and CA's.